Filibuster an exasperatingly useful tool

By Sun Sentinel Editorial Board

Sep 25, 2015 | 9:48 PM

Rep. Vern Buchanan, a Republican who represents Florida's 16th congressional district, reports in his Sept. 20 oped column in the Sun Sentinel that he has sent a letter asking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to end the filibuster.

Buchanan is not alone. Other House members, presidential candidates, lobbyists and ordinary citizens have done likewise. This is one reason the majority leader has such a full trash can.

Advertisement

McConnell, a Senate traditionalist, has no intention of invoking the so-called "nuclear option." His reluctance saves him, in this case, from accusations of hypocrisy. Until the GOP won control of the Senate in the 2014 general election, Republicans under McConnell enthusiastically employed the filibuster to thwart Democratic priorities. McConnell thus has a keen sense of the filibuster's importance to the minority. Like other thoughtful political tacticians in both parties, he is reluctant to jettison that tool.

Buchanan argues that the Senate's failure, because of a threatened Democratic filibuster, to debate and vote on the Iran nuclear agreement is a national embarrassment and should be the last straw. The matter is too important, he said, for the greatest deliberative body on earth to take a pass.

This is an appealing argument. But even if the Senate like the House had formally disapproved of the Iran deal, Congress lacked the votes to override President Barack Obama's certain veto. The agreement with Iran was going to take effect regardless.

And what aspect of the Iran agreement's strengths and weaknesses remained unexplored because of the threatened filibuster and lack of formal Senate debate? Buchanan and allies vehemently opposed to it certainly had their say. And they've been somewhat effective. Just ask Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who might not lose her seat because of her support for the Iran agreement, but nevertheless feels an uncomfortable level of heat.

And when, we wonder, was the last time Americans watched C-SPAN with rapt attention and didn't make up their minds on an issue until considering senators' arguments?

Buchanan rejects the term "nuclear option" for dismantling the filibuster rule — which can prevent legislation from advancing unless there are 60 votes to proceed — and attempts to label it the "constitutional option" because it would let a simple majority rule.

Nice try. But the Constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules. Filibuster or no filibuster, both are constitutional. Further, the Senate — with two seats per state regardless of population — provides just one example of the founders' unwillingness to let the majority always rule. Buchanan himself allows in some cases — such as Supreme Court nominations and international treaties — that requiring a supermajority is a good idea.

At one time or another, most politically astute Americans have shared Buchanan's exasperation with the filibuster. And we have to note that Senate Democrats under then-Majority Leader Harry Reid deployed a "mini-nuclear" option to limit Republicans' ability to block presidential nominations and judicial appointments below the Supreme Court level.

But it is easy for a member of the majority party to knock the filibuster. Easier still for a Republican who, like Buchanan, is not even a member of the Senate. We will be more impressed when a member of the Senate minority begs to dismantle the filibuster.

We would suggest that House members have enough problems of their own, many directly related to House procedures. For example, the looming government shutdown.

Speaker John Boehner wanted to avoid the shutdown — but with a measure that didn't need Democratic votes. He couldn't round up enough GOP votes because too many hard-line conservatives refused to vote for any deal that includes funding for Planned Parenthood. In the end, fractious House Republicans who threatened to topple the speaker led to Boehner's stunning decision to resign.

In the Senate, McConnell is maneuvering for an up-or-down vote on a clean funding measure. Boehner's self-sacrificial departure signals the House will follow suit and approve a bipartisan budget deal.

That's good for the country, which would owe Boehner a salute. But House Republicans couldn't get there without trashing their own leader.